Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Moosally


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Keep. (non-admin close) While "we should not dismiss the subject's concerns out-of-hand", the BLP subject's wishes can't figure overmuch in the weighing of sources or notability. Several editors make the case notability and verifiability were assessed in successful A-class or FA review. No consensus to delete or merge. Fairly clear consensus to keep. BusterD (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Making sure I address editors concerns, WP:GNG is amply met, so WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't figure in at all. WP:BLP1E instructs that in cases of a significant incident, persistence in sources is the guideline for involved parties. However, as an executive in a significant maritime military contractor, the subject is notable for other reasons. BusterD (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Fred Moosally

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am the original creator of this page and later successfully nominated it for Featured Article. Upon review of WikiProject Military history/Notability guide, however, this individual does not appear to meet WP's standards for notability of a military person. The event for which he was most known was for being captain of a battleship upon which occurred one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in the US Navy. He, however, does not appear to have been directly responsible for the accident. His career and life since the accident don't appear to be particularly noteworthy. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One more thing. The individual himself submitted an OTRS for the article to be deleted (see here). Cla68 (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Back in 2009, that seems hardly applicable at this point, since we've decided to keep it for two years hence. The subject's issue was with one of the sources, but that in and of itself does not change the subject's notability. Silver  seren C 04:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ahem. Good luck in your quest having an FA deleted. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's way too combative. My question on your talk page shows better manners, I hope. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I didn't see anything on the article talk page. Did I just miss it? Drmies (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment From memory, a small number of FAs have been deleted in the past. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It would have to be a most unusual situation that would lead to a featured article being deleted from Wikipedia. Our procedures for vetting featured articles are so stringent that only a small fraction of one percent of our articles qualify.  Since the nominator has gone through this process, certainly this person knows that better than I do, because I haven't.  Notability of this person is well established.  Blame is not assigned unfairly.  If the article, though featured, needs improvement, then the nominator (or other informed editors) should improve the article through the normal editing process, rather than arguing for its deletion.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  03:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly a notable subject, even if one of the sources has potential issues (which were never specified), that doesn't change his notability in the slightest. To make it to FA status, it seems very out of place to say that the subject is not notable. Silver  seren C 04:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:SOLDIER indicates those standards as guidelines for inclusion. The subject of the article has definitely received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Rymatz (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Would Wikipedia be better off with or without this article? Easy call. "Meets General Notability Guidelines" for those of you who enjoy following rules... Carrite (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SNOWstorm in July Keep - A featured article?  On my AfD?  Is this some kind of bizzaro Wikipedia I have found myself logged onto today?  The subject satisfies WP:GNG, and he has clearly gone through the citation rigamarole of FA discussion.  He doesn't need to be a notable solider, he just needs to be plain notable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with USS Iowa turret explosion or Delete. Seems to me like a pretty obvious case of WP:BLP1E. That it was a featured article seems to prove that there is a flaw in the featured article approval process. Perhaps we see a long, well-researched, well-written article, as this one is, and we tend to overlook fundamental flaws. I'm unclear why it is being nominated at this time, but the nominator is to be commended for taking action upon reconsideration. I urge the closing admin to base his/her action on policy, and the wishes of the subject, not that it was a featured article. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BLP1E just isn't the case here:
 * Moosally was involved in an explosion on the USS Iowa. Moosally's role in the event was covered in-depth by many sources.
 * Moosally was the subject of a film based on that event.
 * Moosally's (and others') lawsuit against the company who made the film is also covered by secondary sources because of issues over libel, etc..
 * Later working for Lockheed Martin, Moosally was involved in a whistleblower scandal regarding their Deepwater program.
 * And no, I'm not trying to say these latter events are nearly as well-covered as the ship explosion. But they are covered, and that is sufficient. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, but I doubt very much we would have an article on this man were it not for the explosion. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad you noticed, but your doubts carry no weight supporting deletion. The coverage is persistent, regardless of the reason. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of non-trivial mention in sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge to articles on the notable events. -- J N  466  21:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying we should merge to four different, potential articles? Silver  seren C 04:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.